Question of the Week: What is the Biblical stance towards Critical Race Theory?

Critical Race Theory in a word is rooted in Marxism (Karl Marx was a 19^th century German economist and communist) which replaces money with skin color. The beliefs of Karl Marx were that  there are only two states that a person could find themselves in; Oppressor and Oppressed. His belief then was that in order to resolve this, the oppressed must rise against those in power. To what end is anyone’s guess. Many have promised utopia to only deliver the end of society with nothing but more oppression. This is the playbook of Critical Race Theory. The philosophical underpinning of C.R.T. in combating oppression in a society, in the form of racism instead of poverty, carries with it three assumptions that need to be at play.

1.  Selective Existentialism: What you are comes before who you are, unless your emotions tell you otherwise.

2.  Selective Subjective Morality: What personally appeals to you emotionally is the standard for right and wrong.

3.  The Absolute Assumption of Mankind’s Corruption: The problem with people is what they are by nature.

It would help to understand some tenets of Critical Race Theory. They are:

    I.        “Individual identity cannot be separated from our group identity (We are either oppressed or oppressor). Move away from seeing yourself as an individual. You are a part of a group that is allocated by skin color, sex, gender, religion, politics, and health.

  II.        Hegemonic power – The ability of a group to have power over another. Oppression is imposing a “norm” on society. (i.e., Having a hetero sexual family is a norm that would be seen as oppressive because it is the norm in society.)

III.        Diversity means the elimination of all forms of oppression (the hegemonic power). Liberating people from all normal cultures.
(i.e. the 10 Commandments is a list of moral and ethical norms that are binding on all people. Because of this, God would be seen as an oppressor in Social Justice Theory).

IV.        Lived experience is more important than objective evidence in understanding oppression. Facts, Data, Reason are less important than narratives, stories of the oppressed. Oppressive groups hide their oppression through objectivity, evidence, reason and logic.

  V.        Intersectionality – Experiences are unique to oppressed groups. There are different levels of oppression depending on your intersectionality (i.e., how many oppressed groups you identify with; black, woman, transgender, disabled, Muslim.)

Using their own dictionary and standard for ethics, there are naturally many problems with this belief system on a philosophical, historical, and even conceptual basis given its inspiration from Marxism. The goal (on paper) isn’t the liberation of the oppressed, but the transference of oppression from one group to the other. Many brighter minds can deal with the political, historical, and philosophical problems with this mindset. The question we need to be asking is what the Biblical response is to this modern movement.

Response #1: We do not disagree that mankind is fallen. Without a fundamental change of our nature, we will always find a way to oppress each other.

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.
Ephesians 2:1-3 (NKJV)

I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Romans 7:21-24 (NKJV)

When finding common ground (in a discussion) there doesn’t need to be further clarification! In order to respond effectively to someone’s position, it is always going to be most productive when we start with where we agree. So we can agree with C.R.T. that all people are fallen.

Response #2: We agree that society’s impositions do not establish how society ought to morally function. All societies before us have fallen short of a just society in some way. The question is where the standard for a just society comes from? Our purpose isn’t determined by the societal norms of the current day any more than the passionate theories proposed to oppose them as oppressive. If the destination (our purpose in life) isn’t objective, then there is no solution. We don’t necessarily move to a better society by tearing down where we are now. Our response is that the standard for a better society comes from the one who it originally came from. The Creator has the sole right to explain how something was intended to function because it was their intention that made it in the first place. Those who believe in C.R.T. and Christianity both don’t believe that society (in concept or idea) is the problem. Only the way it’s currently functioning. Where the Christian and the C.R.T. supporter differ is whether we should go back to the beginning (God’s intent), or move on to something different in the present. Jesus made this point when addressing a flaw that had taken place in another institution He created known as marriage. Instead of doing away with or reinventing it, He pointed back to how it functioned in the beginning, with Him as the standard. His followers then applied it to their lives in full understanding of what marriage objectively is accordingly.

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Matthew 19:4-6 (NKJV)

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Ephesians 5:22-32 (NKJV)

So, we disagree with C.R.T. on who is to be the authority on how society should function. The Christian holds to an objective truth that is to be adhered to (God/Jesus), while C.R.T. holds to the subjective opinions of C.R. Theorist.

Response #3: Where is the Gospel? The Gospel, or good news, is what separates the Christian from the supporter of Critical Race Theory. C.R.T. offers no solution to our nature or an opportunity to be redeemed again for the sins of their skin color. Those of the oppressed didn’t ransom the oppressor from their status of having white skin or being a part of the norm. There is no redeemer in C.R.T. In contrast, through Jesus Christ, we are shown the problem and freely given the solution (Mark 10:45). In C.R.T., the person who is identified as the problem is given no solution. Only perpetual shame and torment for what they are. The admission of your ethnic guilt could suffice, but maybe not! You still are in your skin, so to speak.

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Romans 8:1-4 (NKJV)

So, Christianity would disagree with C.R.T. as to what the best solution is to free humans for oppressing other humans. Christianity teaches the Gospel message, while C.R.T. has no solutions to the problem of skin color.

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

[email protected] on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.

Question of the Week: Why does the Apostle Peter mention Tartarus from Greek Mythology?

He doesn’t. At least he doesn’t mention Tartarus as it was understood in Greek Mythology. The word Tartarus is a Greek word. And like most words in spoken or written language, those words have meaning. When the Apostle Peter wrote to the church about false teachers in the early church, he makes a point comparing them to demons. The argument is fairly simple. If God didn’t let the angels get away with deception, then He won’t let humans get away with it either. The passage in question is in his second and final epistle discussing this very issue.

For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;
2 Peter 2:4 (NKJV)

The point continues down to 2 Peter 2:9, but the focus of the question is on the word “hell.” In Greek, Tartarus means “sunless abyss” or “bottomless pit.” The Apostle Peter is speaking to a primarily Greek speaking audience, therefore it would be appropriate for him to use Greek words. However, it would be inappropriate to conclude that if Greek Pagans used this word to refer to the lowest section of the Underworld where Zeus imprisoned the Titans, that is and could only be what the word could mean. Peter’s audience needs to be kept in mind as well. The existence of Zeus, Titans, the Underworld, and many other aspects of Tartarus as the pagans defined it are antithetical to Christianity and Judaism. There are no gods besides YHVH (Isaiah 44:6). There are no such thing as a species that predated the gods known as titans (Isaiah 43:10). The pagan descriptions of the Underworld describe the final resting place of the dead to all be in the same place. The Biblical definitions of Heaven and Hell describe whether you’re or separated from God or not. No Hebrew or Christian would claim that the grave or Sheol is the final place of the dead according to Christian doctrine. All of these things and more can be discussed in more detail. However, the most productive information we should have at our disposal is the ability to think critically about the context of Peter’s statement. If Peter is a Jew, speaking to people who believe the Old Testament and the Jewish Messiah, then his terms should be read in light of the audience and speaker just as much as the language he’s speaking in.

Would it be appropriate to conclude that Peter is referring to Tartarus as the Greek Pagans understood it, or the Hebrew Prophets understood it? Obviously the latter. The question that follows is if Tartarus is a Greek term, how would the term have been used if Peter was speaking in Hebrew? Sheol. Sheol is referred to as the holding place of the dead and translated into the Greek language in a variety of ways. Hades, The Grave, and most appropriate for our question this week, The Abyss. Jesus described it as a place where the righteous awaited Him and the wicked awaited Judgment. We read this in the account of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

“There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’ “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’ ”
Luke 16:19-31 (NKJV)

There are those who would argue this was a parable and not an actual description of the afterlife before Jesus’ completed work on the cross. However, notice that Jesus doesn’t introduce this as a parable. He uses proper names like Abraham and Lazarus. He emphasizes terms and makes points unique from any other “parable” He spoke. And likewise, even those who argue this is a parable aren’t discounting that the places and circumstances He’s illustrating His point through aren’t real things. Otherwise they’d have to argue that seeds and fields don’t actually exist given the fact they’re used in a parable by Jesus in Matthew 13:3-9. Or they’d have to argue that there are no such thing as vineyards and wine vats given the fact that Jesus used them in a parable in Mark 12:1-8. It’s not something you can be consistent with. Given that Jesus has the right to tell us what the afterlife is and isn’t, how does He describe it? Not in any way comparable to the writings of Hesiod and the Theogony. This is what will ultimately drive this point home.

Hesiod’s Theogony is the earliest written source we have from Greek culture that defines Tartarus in the way that paganism explains it to be. There are other and more extensive reports that were written later on. However, this is the first time in history that the word Tartarus was used to describe the dwelling place of the Titans. False teachers who would attempt to claim the Titans were real and actually understood to be angels are just trying to sell books. An actual prophet of God by the name of David (Acts 2:29-31) used the term hell, Sheol or abyss, in the Psalms.

Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there.
Psalm 139:7-8 (NKJV)

The earliest date ever attributed to Hesiod’s Theogony is between the 7th and 8th century BC. David lived and wrote these words in the 10th century BC. Jewish culture was using this term a very long time before the Greeks were. And given the fact that Peter was Jewish, it is far more reasonable to conclude that he was using the term as the Bible described it. Not how the pagan religions that Christianity disproves describe it.

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

[email protected]

Follow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.

Question of the Week: How could Jesus have been tempted in Matthew 4:1 when James 1:13 says that God is not tempted?

These kind of questions and others are extremely crucial for us in understanding exactly what we mean when we claim Jesus is God. When we see God behave as only God should, we expect that of Him. When Jesus behaves as only God should, we come to conclusions about Him. The tricky part is when we see Jesus as God behaving in ways only man should. Examples of this are hunger, fatigue, and in this case temptation. God doesn’t hunger, sleep, or experience temptation by definition of what He is. Man does experience these things. The question is how were these both taking place at the same time when God became a Man? Cult groups will claim it has to be one or the other. Novices in this field will dismiss the matter and leave it for the professionals to sort out. We don’t want to be in either of those categories. In order to fully reconcile this paradox of Jesus being God and Man, we must first clarify how Jesus could be either of those things. Let alone both at the same time. Once we understand the concept of what scholars call the “Hypostatic Union” we will be able to reconcile all of scripture with the nature of our Lord.

Fact #1: Jesus is fully God.
Fact #2: Jesus became fully man at a moment of human history.
Fact #3: Jesus continues to function as a man.
Fact #4: Jesus remains God.
Conclusion: Jesus is a unique being in Creation. The God-Man.

Now let’s prove these facts with scripture.

Jesus is God:
+There are things that only God can truthfully claim about Himself and Jesus claimed those things about Himself:
1. God created the Heavens and the Earth:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1 (NKJV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
John 1:1-3 (NKJV)

2. God is the Giver of Life:

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Genesis 2:7 (NKJV)

For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will.
John 5:21 (NKJV)

3. God has existed Eternally:

Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever You had formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.
Psalm 90:2 (NKJV)

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting.”
Micah 5:2 (NKJV)

Jesus became fully man in a moment of human history:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 1:14 (NKJV)

Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”
Luke 24:36-39 (NKJV)

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life—the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us—that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.
1 John 1:1-3 (NKJV)

Jesus continues to function as a man:

This is now the third time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead. So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Feed My lambs.”
John 21:14-15 (NKJV)

“I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.”
Revelation 22:16 (NKJV)

Jesus remains God:

“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.
Isaiah 44:6 (NKJV)

And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death
Revelation 1:17-18 (NKJV)

Conclusion: Jesus is a unique being in Creation. The God-Man.

To recap; God is identified as the one who created the heavens and the earth, and the Word that became flesh in John 1 is also given credit for creation. God is the one who gave life to man in the Garden of Eden, and Jesus claims that is an ability that He shares with the Father. David identifies God as the one who has existed eternally, and the prophet Micah claims the one to be born in Bethlehem actually existed before that point from beyond eternity. This is a small handful of passages used as evidence to conclude that Jesus is God. He says and does the sort of things only God can do. At the same time, Jesus was a being who was able to eat, be seen, touched, and even clarified as having flesh and bones. This is something that was true of Jesus even after His resurrection. He even goes so far as to refer to Himself both as the root and offspring of David. King David’s offspring is also the root or source of His family line. Two unique things are happening at the same time when referring to Jesus. He didn’t cease to be God when He became a man, or He wouldn’t have been able to rightfully refer to Himself in the ways only God can. Likewise, Jesus remains a man following His resurrection given the eyewitness testimonies of His disciples still interacting with Him as a being with flesh and bones. He continues to refer to Himself as the exclusive title of “The First and the Last” even after becoming a man when He appeared to John on Patmos. The First and the Last clarifies that He was dead, but now is alive forevermore. The one speaking to Isaiah is the same one speaking to John and they both speak of themselves the same way, despite Isaiah seeing Jesus before He became a man. These are the facts that we reconcile in order to come to conclusions about Jesus. No one can rightly claim to be the sort of things God is unless they are God. Jesus, or God the Son, referred to Himself as such and functioned in the ways that only God could before and after His resurrection.

This then brings us back to the question. God isn’t tempted, but Man is. Jesus as God isn’t tempted by nature, but adopted human nature in a moment of history. This unique nature as the God-Man could be tempted but remained perfect by nature at the same time. It didn’t lighten the severity of the temptation. Jesus in the wilderness, garden, and throughout His life was exposed to the full human experience. While He was certainly tempted in things that wouldn’t apply to us as men, as a man He experienced temptation. As God, He endured temptation to a degree higher than anything we could imagine.

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
Matthew 4:1 (NKJV)

And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly. Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground. When He rose up from prayer, and had come to His disciples, He found them sleeping from sorrow. Then He said to them, “Why do you sleep? Rise and pray, lest you enter into temptation.”
Luke 22:44-46 (NKJV)

Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.
Hebrews 4:14-15 (NKJV)

“No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good. A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is. After all, you find out the strength of the German army by fighting against it, not by giving in. You find out the strength of a wind by trying to walk against it, not by lying down. A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness — they have lived a sheltered life by always giving in. We never find out the strength of the evil impulse inside us until we try to fight it: and Christ, because He was the only man who never yielded to temptation, is also the only man who knows to the full what temptation means — the only complete realist.” -C.S. Lewis

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

[email protected]

Follow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.

Question of the Week: What role do the early church fathers play in personal bible study?

When it comes to anything we use apart from the Bible in order to better understand it and how it applies to our lives practically, it is important to first understand why we are studying the Bible in the first place. Once the Bible is put in its proper place in our lives, everything else we use to equip us for a godly life will fall into line. The Bible is a collection of 66 books compiled over 1500 years of human history that were tested and verified (Deuteronomy 18:18-22) to come from authentic prophets/spokesmen of God. Though physically written by men, the thoughts and points emphasized in these historical, poetic, and prophetic writings were inspired by God. Therefore, it is the greatest possible source available to us concerning what God is like, how to have a relationship with Him, and what He expects of us personally.

And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter 1:19-21 (NKJV)

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NKJV)

The question then remains where the early church fathers fall in line to this equation. If the Bible is and remains the ultimate source for any consistent and authentic Christian’s understanding of what God has revealed about Himself, then anything less is speculation. This doesn’t mean we discard these observations and writings out of hand, but make sure we don’t put them at a higher position of influence in our lives then the authors themselves would want to be.

What are the “Early Church Fathers?”
The early church fathers are usually referring to church leaders and their writings between the time of the Apostles in the 1st century AD and the 13th century AD. The time of the Protestant Reformation and the Renaissance would not be considered early church fathers. They would fit into their own category. Some of the more prominent names in this category would be; Justin Martyr’s Apologies, Irenaeus of Rome, Polycarp, Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Augustine of Hippo, and St. Athanasius. These are only a small handful of a long list of names that would fit into this category of early church fathers.

Why are the Early Church Fathers different from the writings of the Reformers or Modern Commentaries?
The reason early church fathers are held in a higher regard than modern writings is for one and only one reason. History. These men lived closer to the lifetimes of the original authors of scripture. Therefore, they were more familiar with cultural customs that may have been referenced that we aren’t familiar with or terms that may go over our heads when reading the text. Polycarp and Irenaeus in particular were disciples of the Apostles John and Peter respectively. Therefore their insights are something we’d want to hear given the fact they would have been able to clarify certain points from the author that we don’t have the ability to today.

How do we know we’ve gone too far with citing the Early Church Fathers?
People who err when citing early church fathers usually do so when they have already committed two kinds of mistakes. The first and most common mistake is the fallacy of equivocation when reading something in the Bible. A term is confused, deliberately or otherwise, with a word that has a different meaning and imposed on the Bible. The second mistake is what we call eisegesis. When someone reads an idea into the text of scripture rather than taking that idea out of what is plainly written. The early church fathers are cited to affirm these ideas that are either being imposed or twisted into the text of the Bible as an opinion more authoritative than either of the people discussing them. The problem with either of these mistakes is extremely straight-forward. The early church fathers aren’t infallible. Even if someone in history affirms the opinion of someone who is mistaken, that only proves that two people have now made the same mistake. The overwhelming majority of the claims made against scripture to affirm dogmas or cultic teachings can be either proven or disproven without leaving the pages of scripture. The person who insists on coming to conclusions outside of the Bible has shown where their ultimately authority lies. No Christian should want to find themselves in that position.

How do we avoid abusing the writings of the Early Church Fathers?
The best way to read the early church fathers is the same way you would read modern commentaries. It is an interesting source of insight that may point out things you weren’t familiar with. However, if you trust a fallen sinful human being without verifying what they have said or claimed, you’re treating them like an authority on par with scripture. That is a dangerous position to take without holding them to that very same standard the authors of scripture were tested by. If anyone comes to you claiming to speak with the credibility and respect due only to God, hold them to the standard of a prophet. Are they historically accurate, doctrinally consistent, accountable to capital punishment if they are lying, and able to back up their claims with miracles? The early church fathers weren’t always wrong, but they weren’t always right either. Likewise, they weren’t held to this standard. Therefore, the way we treat them shouldn’t be the same way we treat the text of scripture.

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

[email protected]

Follow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.

Question of the Week: Does the prohibition against “touching the Lord’s Anointed” mean that you can’t criticize or question those in church leadership?

Cult leaders and those who have something they want to avoid criticism about love to use this passage in order to present themselves above any form of correction. The ironic thing is that the two times this passage is applied in scripture, they were both said as the leaders of Israel were being judged for their unbiblical behavior. In order to avoid being deceived or manipulated by false teachers, the best thing we can do when we hear scripture being cited is to ask where, when, and under what circumstances that passage took place. Another good thing to get in the habit of doing is whenever you hear a claim about scripture giving a command, ask for an example of it being put into practice in that way. A Bible teacher that refuses to give you chapter and verse to support their claims shouldn’t have anyone under their teaching. Therefore, let’s go to chapter and verse to support our claims against this teaching lest we fail our own standard.

The statement “Do not touch the Lord’s Anointed” appears two times in scripture.

Saying, “Do not touch My anointed ones, And do My prophets no harm.”
1 Chronicles 16:22 (NKJV)

Then the men of David said to him, “This is the day of which the Lord said to you, ‘Behold, I will deliver your enemy into your hand, that you may do to him as it seems good to you.’ ” And David arose and secretly cut off a corner of Saul’s robe. Now it happened afterward that David’s heart troubled him because he had cut Saul’s robe. And he said to his men, “The Lord forbid that I should do this thing to my master, the Lord’s anointed, to stretch out my hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the Lord.” So David restrained his servants with these words, and did not allow them to rise against Saul. And Saul got up from the cave and went on his way.
1 Samuel 24:4-7 (NKJV)

In both of these passages, the situation in no way involves verbal criticism of a leader or king’s handling of scripture. The first passage in 1 Chronicles 16:22 tells us exactly what was going on when this statement was brought up. It leaves no room for ambiguity as to who is being referred to as the Lord’s Anointed and what is meant by touching them. 1 Chronicles 16:1 plainly states that this psalm was written following King David bringing the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem for the second time. Those familiar with the event in Jewish history would recall that the first attempt involved a very serious and dramatic judgment on God’s part towards those who improperly handled the Ark despite knowing the consequences of doing so. David himself was also corrected by God during this situation as recorded in 2 Samuel 6:1-15. No matter how you try to present this situation, the actual quote that came from David’s Psalm was historically following a time where he was directly corrected by God. Israel’s priesthood who put the Ark on an Ox cart rather than carrying it as Moses commanded them to were corrected by God. The man who touched the Ark knowing full well that wasn’t allowed was corrected by God. And the verse immediately before verse 22 states that God corrected kings. (Those in leadership) The kind of person who would use 1 Chronicles 16:22 to exempt leadership from correction is citing a passage where God was correcting those in leadership. This would suggest the person has either never read the passage they’re explaining the application of, or they know the context of the passage and are lying about it in order to avoid accountability.

The second passage follows a similar pattern shown in 1 Chronicles. It explains with a historical example of exactly what is meant by “touching” the Lord’s Anointed. David, who had been anointed King but not yet been given the crown, was being hunted down by King Saul for reasons he himself couldn’t clarify. He had murdered the priests of Israel and driven the rest into hiding. He had forced David from his family and home without reason. And he had now found Saul in a vulnerable position in the very cave David and those who followed him were hiding in. They encouraged him to physically touch Saul in such a way that would result in his death. The encouragement wasn’t to start criticizing Saul for attempting to murder David. It was a physical threat being answered with physical force. Even if you exclusively apply the term anointed to those in leadership, there isn’t room for the term to apply to verbal correction or to ask questions about their handling of scripture.

The question then remains how to correct those in leadership. Even if the passages cited don’t prohibit the act, any action should be informed by scripture. The answer is simple. If scripture should inform our criticism, it should also be the standard by which our teachings and behaviors are informed as well. If you are going to correct leadership it shouldn’t be because of personality issues, emotional slights, or negotiable side issues. Scripture is the metric by which a sound ministry is informed. If you bring an open Bible and consistently and graciously present the text alongside the area you are bringing attention to, then you’re following the Biblical model of criticism. Correction isn’t prohibited. Just make sure that if you’re going to, you do so in a way that you would welcome if you were on the receiving end.

Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.
Galatians 6:1-2 (NKJV)

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

[email protected] on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube